LabVIEW Pros vs. Cons?

[WayneS1324]

---

@natasftw wrote:

Java is obscure?  Yikes.  Now I see why you're grouping all text-based languages into one.  You've created such a narrow definition of text-based that you've essentially only left a handful. 

---

You have to be right huh? If I were to guess, I'd say that you are the only person on this whole forum that would think that I'm grouping all text languages together. I may as well be talking to a brick wall.

[User002]

Who is the GENIUS at NI that invented the 32x32 fixed icon for subvis?? it's one of the most stupid piece of crap that is lasting forever.

[Hooovahh]

---

@WayneS1324 wrote:

If I were to guess, I'd say that you are the only person on this whole forum that would think that I'm grouping all text languages together.

---

Well there is at least two of us then.

[WayneS1324]

---

@Hooovahh wrote:

Well there is at least two of us then.

---

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough then. On the other hand, maybe I'll replace all of my subvis with COBOL functions.

[richjoh]

---

@natasftw wrote:

---

@WayneS1324 wrote:

Jesus christ dude... you're splitting hairs.

LabVIEW = apples

Text based  = oranges

90% of programmers would've got that oranges does not equal BASIC, Forth, Prolog, Lisp, Java, Smalltalk, etc, etc, etc, or any other obscure or speciality language.

I assumed that people would get, and I'm sure most did, that oranges = C/C++/C#, Ada, etc.

---

Java is obscure?  Yikes.  Now I see why you're grouping all text-based languages into one.  You've created such a narrow definition of text-based that you've essentially only left a handful. 

---

@richjoh wrote:

I only know of Ada where OOP was not an after thought, all other general purposes OOP are after thoughts, LV no different. Since when did C use references? Hey if your lucky enough to have your choice use Visual Studio instead. I've worked with folks on either sides and graphical developers ran circles around the text C, C++ developers. But hey this may not be the case for all, just sayin.

Correction: not even Ada was originally  OOP, from Wikipedia " Ada 95 added support for object-oriented programming, including dynamic dispatch."

---

Since when didn't C use references?   Bell Labs had pointers in B.  Did you seriously program in C without ever passing by reference rather than value?  Or, did I just miss the /sarcasm tag?

---

I notice you appear to use the term for pointers and reference to mean the same thing. C does not use references, another name that refers to something (i.e. an object in C++). C uses pointer correct but not references. If you mean C uses pointers and called pointers references well that wrong terminalogy. Pointer are the address, a reference is an alias name. A labview reference is not like an C++ reference, its used for properties and invoke action. Now I'm not an expert, this is just off the top of my head.

Rich J

[rolfk]

It's not as clear cut. C has "parameters passed by reference" which means as pointer. So you may be right that C doesn't have references in the sense of C++ but technically those references are pointers too, but C++ doesn't describe how they need to be implemented, only the characteristics of it and a compiler is indeed free to choose a different implementation that could use something else than pointers if the hardware allows that.

Still, saying that C doesn't use the term references is not correct.

[richjoh]

---

@rolfk wrote:
It's not as clear cut. C has "parameters passed by reference" which means as pointer. So you may be right that C doesn't have references in the sense of C++ but technically those references are pointers too, but C++ doesn't describe how they need to be implemented, only the characteristics of it and a compiler is indeed free to choose a different implementation that could use something else than pointers if the hardware allows that.

Still, saying that C doesn't use the term references is not correct.

---

We are talking about C here and C++ references. I disagree with your statement, i never open a C programming book, explaining references for pointers. Its underlying functioality is understood. They are different so I don't use the terms loosely, a quick google and I find this forum repeat what I mentioned and not how you described pointers - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4305673/does-c-have-references.

[rolfk]

Read the second post in that thread. It says that C has conceptually references but not syntactically like C++. Just because C++ explicitedly added syntax for references doesn't make C suddenly unable to reference objects (in the broader C sense) through pointers.

[richjoh]

In C parameters are are passed by value, this creates a new value, unless you use a pointer that passes the address, thereby no linkage to calling function just parameter address and if not a const pointer can point to anything. Saying C has parameters passed by references is wrong.😳

[rolfk]

Well it simply depends on your definition of what a reference is. As CS person it may make sense to restrict it to the "true" explicit and specifically designated C++ reference. Before C++ invented the reference parameter a pointer in C was often considered a reference too. May not have been correct in the strict sensesense of programming language terminology (which wasn't as strict 20 years ago as now) but still correct in the meaning of the word "reference" in the English language.

30 years ago when I learned programming there where reference parameters in Pascal and we learned that pointer parameters in C where in fact the same things. C++ didn't really exist back then as a formal standard and there was no other way to pass output parameters to a C function. Technically C++ reference parameters are also implemented as pointers in C++.